Some apparently think I'm in some sort of group-hug political love rainbow, so I'd better clear up a few things that people (particularly in the media) have gotten seriously wrong.

So, OK, yes, I think Mr. Mourdock is a fine man. I should add that I've had nothing but pleasant civility and even friendly banter with Mr. Donnelly. I think that both of these men are gentlemen.

My appreciation of these fellows as good human beings has nothing to do, however, with why I applied for the job of US Senator from Indiana.

I disagree (do NOT agree) with both of those fine gentlemen on the role of the federal government in almost every particular, degree and way. They and I see politics through entirely opposed paradigms. They have chosen to represent the Two Party System, which most people should by now see is just one crony network; and I have undertaken to oppose that. That is a big deal. It is a big enough deal that there's hardly any point to talking ideology as long as the nation's run by a behind-the-curtain crime syndicate.

...Or did you think there was some other reason all D and R administrations end up doing the same thing; sending more of your money overseas, helping out banksters and campaign contributors, raising debt limits and keeping our military shooting all over the globe? Their “system” is Special Deals for Special People.

As a reminder, you and I are not the Special ones.

Follow the big campaign dollars. You really would see what I mean. This is not about Donnelly or Mourdock or even me. Our government is not a system of written laws and elected people – it's a corrupt mess and you know it. If you plan to vote for it again, you've got some e'splainin' to do!

I am about quite the opposite – total equality under law for all people ...including the wealthy and connected. One set of rules for all. This is, regrettably, a major paradigm shift from the status quo of lobbyists, special interest groups, lawyers, corporate and union laws...

Our current “system” is based upon, dependent upon, and thrives upon, disparity, opposition, destruction and discord.

I absolutely hate that. Our founders did too. What we have now isn't new, you know. We've gone backwards. Way backwards. What is still the newest, freshest and best thing in human social order is what we threw away. I want that back.

About that “Pro Life” versus “Pro Choice” litmus test...
All of us on that stage said we're "Pro-Life."

But what does that mean to even the most partisan voters anymore when we're really just testing and posturing about religion and feelings and we don't expect any policy making? It's a tribal identity question. It grates on me that we can never open up serious discussions on this serious issue that obviously has more than two sides...

So let me make this as clear as I can make it...

Both Donnelly and Mourdock believe that federal politicians (not state politicians – federal politicians) have the authority to determine whether and when women can have abortions. I do not. I believe that this authority constitutionally and pragmatically exists only (just as with murder and other such serious crimes) at the state level.

Besides the legality of it, you don't want Central Planning to get involved in this! The corruption is already too bad. Just imagine if Barclays PLC and Capital Group Companies, Inc., become global abortion providers – you'd have to get UN license to have a baby. Remember, the more centralized the power, the more difficult to monitor, control, or fight...(see USSR, 1922-1991)

Donnelly promises to personally limit his use of otherwise unlimited authority to prevent abortions except in cases of rape and health of the mother. I don't believe such power should exist that is limited only by personal restraint!

Mourdock said that he'd personally limit his use of otherwise unlimited authority to prevent abortions only for the life of the mother. Once again, I oppose such unrestrained and centralized power.

I do believe that interstate abortion disputes are matters for courts, not legislation. But court judgments are not law; which is a part of why Roe v Wade rankles so much.

So...
By the restraining words of the constitutions, both state and federal, my opinions on abortion should make me the friend of Pro Life people via my stand on Roe v Wade and federal funding of abortions both here and abroad (through our funding of UNESCO, for example), but a friend of Pro Choice people with my stand on abortion itself as federal policy.

Of course, the fact that I don't fall neatly into one tribal label or the other makes me problematic for both tribes, apparently.

Oh well.

My defense of the constitutions, state and federal means some other very significant things that never came out in questionnaires, debates, or even the questions I field every day.

The other two candidates are inherently allied with our unconstitutional fiat currency/banking system. Even though Mourdock has said he's in favor of auditing the Fed (good start, but only if it's to End The Fed!), read his statements associated with that and you'll see that he's not at all about constitutional currency reform. This unconstitutional, monopolistic and in fact thieving banking system is one of the two faces in what I see as our real “Two Party System.”

The other two candidates are also completely invested in our unconstitutional standing army/military-industrial complex. This is, of course, the other half of the true two-party system.

All through history, standing armies have required debt engines in the form of private, but quasi/peri-government-ish moneychangers and/or central banks. Central banks and the theft they entail would never be tolerated if not for the fear mongering, political mischief and ultimately, strong-arm politics, that goes along with standing armies and their incessant wars. Our wisest founders and more than a few Presidents warned us about this two-headed monster of a monopoly on money and a monopoly on arms.

I see these problems as structural, geopolitical problems that we must eliminate before they destroy our culture just like so many others before us.

Read the constitutions for my proposal on how to fix this...or just vote for me.

I was going to detail more differences between us; all the agencies, powers and laws I'd annul... but that'd be too much for anybody to read. So, just read the constitutions. I think in just the annotations I'd made, you'll see that, ideologically, I couldn't be more different from the other two.

One last thing: About this whole “the way things are” schtick that seems to be the only issue between voters, and me...

There has never been a two party system in law or practice in this country. The two parties made that up. It is a lie. And we were warned about this from even before Washington's famous warnings about political parties in his Farewell Address.

Do not believe that stuff about “you have to work within the system” when you know as well as I do that the system isn't working, won't last much longer, will end badly, and you don't even like it. Besides, the status quo likes the way it works, will not change itself, and is quite able to control those who choose to work within its gears. You don't have to trust me on this. Look around both now and in the recent past.

There've been plenty of fine people like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul who've tried to “work within the system.” But our system is getting worse and worse. There is no positive movement. Quit fooling yourself. The historical clock is ticking.

Human societies are working on a multi-thousand-year success rate of...zero. 100% eventual failure rate so far. That should make us more humble and circumspect than we are.

You know that what we had here was extraordinary. It's what I hope we reclaim instead of going backward to the pre-Hammurabi authoritarianism that is our human default state.

Our founders took up guns against their own government so that you can overthrow your whole government with just a vote. That's what Election Day is for.

So quit blaming politicians. Quit blaming the system. You are the system. You choose how we're to live. You have all the power to fix everything, and you have all the accountability if you don't.

Late last night on his facebook campaign page, Libertarian candidate for US Senate Andrew Horning posted the following statement regards Richard Mourdock's comment on abortion during last evening's Senatorial debate (http://www.facebook.com/HorningForSenate):

"I should probably just shut up about Mourdock's Moment and let votes come my way without standing in the way. I have nothing to gain and at least a little to lose by speaking my mind.

But I'd be a lousy man and I wouldn't sleep tonight if I were to withhold my thoughts on this. So, I must defend Mr. Mourdock, at least in this one little way.

You probably don't know how hard it is to stand up before cameras in this tense situation and try to say what you mean, and not say anything stupid. To do this with a clock ticking, and only a minute to be specific, clear and intelligible, is apparently impossible.

All of us slipped now and then.

God Knows that I certainly said things I wish I could retract, and didn't say much of what I'd meant to. In a minute, I could only formulate a thought and start to articulate it before the timekeeper's red STOP sign came up.

I want people to vote for me, of course. But I sure don't want anybody to vote for me based upon Mourdock's supposed gaffe for at least a couple of reasons:

1. That sort of hair-trigger reactive politics is a fair-sized chunk of flaw in human behavior that makes politics so inevitable, ugly and dangerous.

2. I understand what he meant, and... well...

I personally know women who'd been raped, and had abortions. While I don't personally know any women who'd been raped and bore the child, I've certainly heard plenty of stories of such women. And the only regrets I've heard are from the former group. I know many women who didn't have abortions were blessed beyond their hopes by their beautiful child – a child who was, after all, innocent of the brutality of her or his conception.

Everybody who knows me knows that my core philosophy of anti-aggression flows into a pro-life stance as well. While I insist upon constitutionality in my politics, and understand that most of the abortion debate should properly be argued at the state level, my personal feelings are far more like... Mr. Mourdock's.

While I would not unconstitutionally craft federal policy in this matter, I do agree with Mr. Mourdock that, if you have any notion of a deity at all, then God's Mercy could be seen in the birth of a child. No matter what else may have happened up to that point.

I'm sorry if that offends people who might have come my way by way of Mourdock's words. But I don't want anybody to vote for me under false premises or hasty judgments.

I've got to stand on my principles; which means I've got to defend my principles all the time. No matter how those chips may fall."

Candidate Responses - South Bend Tribune

ANDREW HORNING
is the
Libertarian
candidate for U.S. Senate. He ran for Indiana governor in 2000 and 2008. He lives in Freedom, Ind.

Q. If the economy were again to teeter on the brink of depression, would you support a plea by either
President Obama
or President Romney for a stimulus effort through infrastructure projects? If so, what type of projects and with what safeguards against waste? If not, what other steps would you support in such a crisis?

HORNING:
Absolutely not. This "broken window economics" has been continuously debunked for the past two centuries. It's also unconstitutional of course. The crisis has been caused by the (unconstitutional) central banking/money changing we were warned against for the past several thousand years, along with unconstitutional and immoral spending and action. The course we've been plotting since Nixon unilaterally ended the last vestige of the Bretton-Woods agreement is the historically tragic mix of military industry and money-manipulating elites that has always ended violently; we were warned of this by a dozen U.S. presidents! I propose rule of law under existing state and federal constitutions as written, instead. This means sound money as required by both state and federal constitutions, as well as dramatic cuts in that ungoverned monster we call "government," and an end to our global game of military "whack a mole." ....

Candidate Responses - The Message Online

In a matter of weeks, millions of Catholics will enter voting booths to cast their votes. According to the Official Catholic Directory by P.J. Kennedy & Sons, approximately 700,000 Catholics reside in Indiana. These Hoosiers will have the opportunity to make their mark on the national canvas by electing several national office holders including one U.S. senator from Indiana.

Three U.S. Senate candidates seek the office. Indiana State Treasurer, Richard Mourdock is running on the Republican ticket; Congressman Joe Donnelly will run on the Democrat ticket; and Andrew Horning, who works in the cardiovascular healthcare industry, is running as a Libertarian. All three candidates were invited by the Indiana Catholic Conference to provide responses to questions of importance to Catholic voters. All three candidates agreed, and their responses are listed below in alphabetical order. ....

The Liberty Candidates questionaire is one of the most specific and rigourous of it's type. Candidates currently and previously endorsed by the group include Gary Johnson, John Jay Myers, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash and others. It is an honor to be included. We
greatly
appreciate their endorsement, and service to the cause of liberty with their vetting process.

Youtube video

Civil Discourse Now, September 29, 2012, part 3

Mark Small and Paul Ogden discuss the 2012 campaign and issues with Libertarian Party candidate for United States Senate, Andrew Horning, and with guest panelist, Jeff Cox. Third of four segments of the September 29, 2012, show.

Television appearance

WISH 8 - Indy Style

US Senate Candidate Andrew Horning

As part of a special series we have invited all major political candidates running for office in Indiana to be on Indy Style. US Senate candidate Andrew Horning and his wife Wendy create Sweet Potato Soup with produce directly from their farm.

Radio Interview

Proposal to return to gold standard comes as Bernanke speaks in Indy

With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke speaking in Indianapolis, a Senate candidate is renewing his call to abolish the Fed.

Libertarian Senate nominee Andrew Horning argues currency needs to be tied to the gold standard or something else with a fixed value for economic and constitutional reasons. The Fed was established in part to allow a more fluid money supply that could be loosened or tightened. Horning argues that power holds the same dangers as other monopolies: the lure of abusing that power is too "seductive."

Horning contends a fixed-value currency would boost the economy by assuring businesses of stability.

President Richard Nixon followed West Germany in decoupling U-S currency from the gold standard in 1971.

Opinions - Editorials

Indianapolis Star - Quit your complaining about 'wasted votes'

Oct 9, 2012

Written by Abdul-Hakim Shabazz

My parents when I was growing up had a saying whenever one of my siblings displayed a sense of entitlement: "The only thing this world owes you is a you-know-what kicking." Shortly thereafter, that sense of entitlement went away.

I raise this subject because we are fewer than 30 days from the election. That means not only will silly season kick into high gear with more TV ads with grainy footage talking about how someone's opponent wants to eat puppies and use the elderly for skeet-shooting, but I also expect to hear more whining by partisans regarding third parties and how they are "stealing" votes from candidates who might otherwise win.

I hear this line the most from individuals who are ardent supporters of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock when the subject of Libertarian candidate Andy Horning comes up. The recent poll by Howey Politics and DePauw University showed Democrat Joe Donnelly leading Mourdock 40-38 and Horning coming in at 7 percent. In social media circles, the debates rage fast and furious that candidates like Horning will steal votes from Mourdock and enable Donnelly to win.

Do we not see that there's something we must address before we can reasonably discuss ideology?
...Or am I the one who's wrong?

To me it's crystal clear. Our "two party system" is really just two faces of the same behind-the-scenes network of professional politicos, military industrialists and of course banksters, who we've been warned about
for ages.

The real choice before voters isn't about tax rates, debt, war, or any of those other symptoms of dysfunction. The choice is whether to keep the dysfunction going as-is, or not.

The question is whether you're to vote for the status quo crime syndicate (either D or R face), or an alternative to at least bust up the racket.

To me, if you're a lefty, you ought to be looking for Green Party or independent candidates who'll further your ideological aims...or even vote for some other "third party" or independent candidate who'll at least break us out of the bipolar paradigm.

If you're a liberty-loving or small-government proponent, you should vote Libertarian or Constitution Party, or some independent who'll further your ideological wishes ...or even vote for some other "third party" or independent candidate who'll at least break us out of the bipolar paradigm.

Is it so hard to see that we should have listened to our wisest founders, a dozen US Presidents, and every chapter of human history going back to stone tablets? Is it so hard to see that we've fallen into the ancient scheming of behind-the-curtain power brokers pulling the levers of power?

There's much to debate about who our founders were, and what they bequeathed us. But they did unequivocally give us one thing of value that persists today:
No Excuses.

They sacrificed vastly more than a push of a button on Election Day in order to give us the power to choose our way of life. We have what we've chosen. We have nobody else to blame for problems, and we have nobody else to turn to for a fix. Our political order perfectly reflects who we are, what we want, what we choose, and what (or who) we're willing to sacrifice in order to get what we want.

With the world's highest percentage of citizens in prison, with our armies in or pointed at most of the nations of the world, with endless wars, unsustainable debt, and money that's not worth its paper, I think the evidence suggests that we've been choosing very badly, for a very long time.
I suggest we change. And pronto.

OK, it's hard to admit when you've been wrong. I've made many bad choices in my life, and I've tried to defend a pretty high percentage of them. I know well that pointing my accusing finger at you is more likely to provoke a defense than a change.

But I don't know what else to do but speak truth to power. We The People really are, despite our whining, the power. And the truth is that We The People have been screwing up.
This is no office betting pool. It is no game. You have choices to make in the voting booth.

Please take a deep breath and think hard. Look at where we are. Understand that this is where we chose to be.

The Liberty Candidates questionaire is one of the most specific and rigourous of it's type. Candidates currently and previously endorsed by the group include Gary Johnson, John Jay Myers, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash and others. It is an honor to be included. We
greatly
appreciate their endorsement, and service to the cause of liberty with their vetting process.

Andrew Horning who is running for United States Senate in the State of Indiana

LIBERTY-CANDIDATES.ORG enthusiastically welcomes Andrew Horning to the growing slate of candidates championing a return to Constitutional governance in the United States!

A Liberty Candidate will defend the great American principles of:

Individual Liberty

Constitutional Government

Sound Money

Free Markets

a Non-interventionist Foreign Policy.

This endorsement is the hallmark of a true Liberty Candidate. To qualify, Candidates must submit answers to the liberty questions (http://tinyurl.com/libertyapplication). Then, each application is voted on by a committee made up of peers and other liberty minded individuals. Each candidate’s website is visited by committee members to see that a candidate’s answers and his/her stance on the issues coincide.

If accepted, each Liberty Candidate is added to the urgent care near me
site with prominent links back to his/her site(s). All Liberty Candidates are eligible to participate in the Liberty Candidate Money Bombs.

With candidates like Andrew Horning serving the people at the city, county, state and federal level, there is real hope for change in America.

Let Freedom Ring!

About Liberty-Candidates.org

Liberty Candidates.org’s mission is to support Liberty Candidates running for public office in the United States. A true Liberty Candidate will defend the great American principles of Individual Liberty, Sound Money, Free Markets, Constitutional Government and a Non-interventionist Foreign Policy. Our Goal is to have at least one Liberty Candidate in each state!

Freedom, IN: Writing for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Gary North suggested the following two-point bill to restore financial health to the United States of America:

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and all subsequent amendments to that act are hereby revoked.

The gold that belongs to the United States government, and which is kept on deposit with the Federal Reserve System, is hereby transferred to account of the United States Treasury.

I agree, and would submit such a bill should voters choose to make that possible.

In the meantime, we mean to assemble at the Convention Center where Ben Bernanke will be speaking in the afternoon. We have more than two points to make about what the Federal Reserve Bank is, and what it has done to us.

Freedom, IN: So far, I've become aware of a dozen public candidate events (debates, QA, meet/greet) that have been canceled because at least one of the other candidates prefer to purchase tightly controlled, pre-scripted messages, than face actual human interaction and hard questions.

This is not how elections should work.

Nobody but the elites and those who make their living as special interest group agents like “the influence of money in politics.” But as long as voters keep voting for those that take the money and run, and as long as voters don't demand more real job interviews from candidates, the influence-peddling will continue to flourish.

Unfortunately, voters don't even know how bad it's gotten. They never hear about all the options on the ballot, let alone how the options they can see behave in the real world.

You'd never hire a janitor with so little scrutiny as we now expect with political candidates who seek control over your liberty, your property, and your life.

We even expect the candidates themselves to run the election process. We know that's expensive, we know where the money comes from, and we know that there are strings attached.

Chris Spangle sits down to talk with US Senate candidate Andy Horning for an in-depth interview on running the first negative campaign on voters, why he keeps coming back, and what it’s like inside the Republican Party.

That’s the question I hear the most: “What are you going to do for me?” But let me ask
you; what have politicians done for you
so far?

In his 1961 inaugural address, JFK ordered an
about-face from the New Deal
when he said, “…ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.” He then pushed for the
biggest tax cut in history. The great orator, abolitionist, statesman and former slave Frederick Douglass said, “Do nothing with us, or by us, as a particular class. We now simply ask to be allowed to do for ourselves.” Our “Founding Fathers” created a nation that had the simplest, thriftiest, most minimal government on earth, and this nation flourished
like no other in history. Why did people ask less and get more back then? Why are we failing now? It’s simple. The people who win power with promises are
not
the ones who
help you every day.

Politicians don’t make the discoveries that make our lives safer, longer, and more comfortable. Free-market, free-thinking artisans, inventors, scientists and entrepreneurs do that. Government doesn’t build cars, nice houses and stylish shoes. It doesn’t make espresso, or bicycle helmets, or leather sofas, or medicines. It doesn’t make jumbo jets, computers or portable DVD players. Private businesses are launching spacecraft and building global telecom systems. Doctors can, without political intervention, open up a failing human body, replace the heart, and allow a life to go on.

Yet we’ve somehow convinced ourselves that without government, there’d be no roads. Some of us think that without government subsidies, there’d be no football, no art, no charity, no business. While we don’t utter it anymore, there is a
name
for this thinking. We used to call it
socialism, and Americans
used to fight it. Now we whimper and beg for it; and we’re getting it good and hard.

So, you want to know what I’ll do for you?

Perhaps you call it “Spring Cleaning” when you look around, get disgusted with what you see, and purge your environment of anything that doesn’t suit you. It’s called good business when companies consolidate, drop ancillary operations and focus on core business. Whatever you call it, I will apply this wisdom to government again. It’s worked every time we’ve tried it, and it works to the benefit of
all. That sounds like a fair deal to me.